TINNITUS

R. CASADEI · 2026 · Case ID: A26033084

GRANTED

Summary

The veteran served on active duty from April 1993 to October 2000 and again in June 2009. The veteran appeals the denial of service connection for tinnitus and the dismissal of the claim for bilateral hearing loss. The tinnitus claim was based on the veteran's assertion of loud noise exposure during service, including proximity to jets and weapons training. The service medical records did not contain complaints of tinnitus. A January 2020 VA examination found the tinnitus less likely than not related to service, citing no in-service complaints and a late onset. However, the Board found the veteran's lay statements credible and competent, noting consistent reports of tinnitus since service, beginning in 1994. The Board also assigned substantial weight to a March 2025 private medical opinion from Dr. J.M., an otolaryngologist, who concluded the tinnitus was at least as likely as not caused by loud noises incurred during service. The Board found the evidence in approximate balance and resolved doubt in the veteran's favor, granting service connection for tinnitus. The claim for bilateral hearing loss was dismissed because the veteran failed to timely appeal the April 2020 rating decision denying that claim, rendering the decision final.

Rationale

Veteran's lay statements found credible and competent; Private physician opinion found substantial probative weight; Resolved reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210625-168989

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26033084
Decision Date: 04/09/26 Archive Date: 04/09/26

DOCKET NO. 210625-168989
DATE: April 9, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for tinnitus is granted.

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the probative, competent, and persuasive evidence of record shows that it is as likely as not that the Veteran has continuously had symptoms of tinnitus during and since service.

2. The Veteran did not timely appeal an April 2020 rating decision that denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, and the April 2020 rating decision became final.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309.

2. The criteria for dismissal of the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1993 to October 2000 and in June 2009.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2021 rating decision as it relates to the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. An April 2020 rating decision denied service connection for hearing loss. Both rating decisions were issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Office (RO), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In October 2019, the Veteran filed a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review, and requested review of an April 2020 rating decision which denied entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. In February 2021, the AOJ issued a rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.

In June 2021, the Veteran requested a hearing docket review of the appeals by the Board on a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement). In March 2025, the Veteran attended a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record.

Under the hearing review election, the Board may consider evidence submitted to VA at the time of the April 2020 rating decision with respect to bilateral hearing loss and the February 2021 rating decision with respect to tinnitus, any evidence submitted at the March 2025 Board hearing, and any evidence submitted at the hearing or within 90 days after the scheduled hearing. VA will not seek additional evidence on behalf of the Veteran as part of the review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.

1. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus.

Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that an injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in active service or, if pre-existing service, was aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.310.

To establish service connection for a disability, a veteran must show (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal relationship, or nexus, between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection will be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § §1110. With chronic disease shown as such in service so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. Tinnitus, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is among the chronic diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), and the Board finds that continuity of symptomatology may establish relationship to service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

Medical evidence is required to demonstrate a relationship between a current disability and the continuity of symptomatology demonstrated if the condition is not one where a lay person's observations would be competent. Clyburn v. West
. With chronic disease shown as such in service so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. Tinnitus, as an organic disease of the nervous system, is among the chronic diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), and the Board finds that continuity of symptomatology may establish relationship to service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

Medical evidence is required to demonstrate a relationship between a current disability and the continuity of symptomatology demonstrated if the condition is not one where a lay person's observations would be competent. Clyburn v. West, 12 Vet. App. 296 (1999). Whether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is an issue of fact and lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, sometimes the layperson will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example, a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer; (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis; or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Lay evidence presented by a Veteran concerning continuity of symptoms after service may generally be considered credible and ultimately competent, regardless of a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006). The Board has the authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). VA may favor one medical opinion over another, provided an adequate basis is provided. Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429 (1995).

It is the policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent with the facts in each case, with all reasonable doubt to be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in approximate balance, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the weight of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107.

The Veteran contends that tinnitus is caused by service. Specifically, the Veteran states that ringing, crinkling, and humming began in his ears after being exposed loud noise in service.

A February 2021 rating decision found that the Veteran was diagnosed with tinnitus and that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service. Specifically, the rating decision found that the Veteran was exposed to hazardous noise in service. Additionally, the rating decision found that the Veteran's tinnitus was manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more following service and that the Veteran had sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements for presumptive service connection. The Board is bound by those favorable findings.

Service medical records do not show any record or complaints of tinnitus, ringing in the ears, or hearing crinkling noises.

During a January 2020 VA examination, the Veteran described his tinnitus as constant. He stated that he worked in close proximity to jets and did not wear ear protection during weapons training. The VA examiner listed 2009 as the onset of the Veteran's tinnitus. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not (less than a 50 percent probability) caused by or the result of military noise exposure. The VA examiner explained that there was no report of tinnitus in the Veteran's service medical records and that the Veteran's tinnitus began after service. The examiner stated that medical literature did not support late onset noise-induced tinnitus. Additionally, the VA examiner determined that the Veteran's tinnitus impacted the ordinary conditions of daily life and impacted the Veteran's ability to work.

During an April 2020 Higher Level Review Informal Conference, the Veteran asserted that his tinnitus began in service.

Private medical records indicate that while the Veteran sought treatment for tinnitus, he consistently stated that his tinnitus began during service. In August 2021, the Veteran described tinnitus as a clicking and hum noise. In September 2021, the Veteran stated that he experienced tinnitus symptoms in both ears, but that his right ear was worse than his left. He reiterated
service. The examiner stated that medical literature did not support late onset noise-induced tinnitus. Additionally, the VA examiner determined that the Veteran's tinnitus impacted the ordinary conditions of daily life and impacted the Veteran's ability to work.

During an April 2020 Higher Level Review Informal Conference, the Veteran asserted that his tinnitus began in service.

During a March 2025 hearing, the Veteran described noise exposure during service. Specifically, the Veteran explained that while deployed, he worked for at least 12 hours a day in an office directly below the flight deck. He explained that when jets and helicopters took off, it created a loud noise, shook the floor and walls, and would create a blast and echo in the office. The Veteran described his tinnitus symptom as crinkling wax paper with a humming and ringing sound. The Veteran asserted that tinnitus symptoms began in 1994 and began as an echo in his ear. During the March 2025 hearing, the Veteran stated that he did not seek treatment for tinnitus in service because he believed that doing so would have been frowned upon. The Veteran asserted that he had no problems with his hearing before service and that his tinnitus symptoms have gotten worse.

In a March 2025 medical opinion, Dr. J.M, a private physician certified in otolaryngology head and neck surgery, concluded that the Veteran's tinnitus was at least as likely as not caused by loud noises from weapons and incurred during service. Dr. J.M had been treating the Veteran for tinnitus and hearing loss for nearly 4 years.

The Board finds that the Veteran, as a lay person, is both credible and competent to provide evidence of the existence of the medical condition of tinnitus, as it comes to him through his senses of ringing, humming, and crinkling noises in the ears, and the fact that it has been continuous since active service. Specifically, the Board finds that tinnitus, which manifests as ringing in the ears, is not the type of medical condition which requires specialized medical knowledge or training to assess. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A lay person, such as the Veteran, may competently state that he perceives ringing in the ears. The Veteran may also competently state when that condition started and if it has continued to the present.

A review of the competent evidence of record shows the Veteran has credibly reported symptoms of tinnitus continuously since service. Therefore, the Board finds that tinnitus can be service connected based on a credibly reported continuity of symptomatology of a chronic disease. The Veteran has consistently asserted that he began experiencing ringing and crinkling noises in the ears during service as a result of loud noise conditions while in service. Furthermore, VA has already conceded hazardous noise exposure for this Veteran.

The Board also finds the Veteran's lay statements regarding the continuity of tinnitus symptoms to be credible. The Board notes that the Veteran has consistently noted that the ringing in the ears began during service and that those symptoms have continued to the present. The Board finds the Veteran credible with regard to the assertions of continuity of tinnitus symptomatology since service.

The Board acknowledges that there may be medical evidence of record contrary to the Board's findings and that the service medical records do not show complaints of tinnitus during service. Specially, the January 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's tinnitus was less likely than not related to active service. However, that examiner stated that tinnitus began in 2009, while the Veteran credibly contends that tinnitus began during service and has continued to the present.

The Board assigns substantial probative weight to Dr. J.M.'s medical opinion because of his experience and history of treating the Veteran. Additionally, the Board assigns substantial probative weight to the Veteran's lay statements of record because the Veteran, as a layperson, may competently state that he perceives ringing in the ears and when that condition began. The Board finds that the evidence is in approximate balance as the favorable and unfavorable evidence has nearly equal evidentiary weight.

Accordingly, based on the evidence and arguments presented, the Board finds that the Veteran's tinnitus was as likely as not present during service and has a continuity of symptomatology since service. As the Board finds that the Veteran's lay statements have competently and credibly established continuity of symptomatology, and resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the claim for service connection for tinnitus is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

An April 2020 rating decision denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran was notified of that decision on April 15, 2020.

On June 25, 2021, the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement seeking review of the April 2020 rating decision concerning denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran did not request an extension of time to file the Notice of Disagreement. Notably, the Veteran submitted an October 2020 Request for Higher Level Review regarding the claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus, which was adjudicated in the same April 2020 rating decision as the denial of service connection for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran did not include bilateral hearing loss on the October 2020 Request for Higher Level Review or any other VA form until he filed the Notice of Disagreement in June 2021.

VA Form 10182 must be filed within one year from the date the AOJ mails notice of a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203(b). An untimely Notice of Disagreement deprives the Board of jurisdiction to consider the merits of an appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c). The Veteran did not appeal the April 2020 decision within one year, and that rating decision became final. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.113.

Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss because the Veteran did not timely file an appeal. The claim must be dismissed because the April 2020 rating decision became final, and the June 2021 Notice of Disagreement is not timely. 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c).

As such, the Veteran's appeal must be dismissed as a matter of law. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.104(a), 20.104(c), 20.105, 20.201.

While the Board is grateful for the Veteran's honorable service to this country and is sympathetic to the Veteran's claim, the Board is bound by the statutes and regulations and does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal.

If the Veteran wants VA to consider any new or additional evidence, the Veteran may file VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and submit or identify that evidence. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

R. Casadei

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M.H., Associate Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer